Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Skills) Share this | Hansard source

Labor supports the Official Development Assistance Multilateral Replenishment Obligations (Special Appropriation) Bill 2019. It provides money to funds that carry out essential work in tackling poverty and promoting economic growth and sustainable development in some of the world's poorest countries. The funds also help tackle environmental challenges which require global co-operation. Our support for these funds is part of Australia's commitment to being a good international citizen. It's one of the ways Australia contributes to global economic and social development and to tackling environmental challenges. However, our concern with the Prime Minister's undermining of Australia's role in multilateral institutions is something that we are extremely concerned about.

We are also concerned about the coalition government's cuts to Australia's aid budget. Since this government came to office in 2013, it has cut $11.8 billion from Australian aid programs. Our development relationships in south-east and east Asia have seen annual development assistance cut by $384.7 million, or 29.8 per cent, since 2014-15. The aid to Indonesia, as we heard the member for Bruce mention, has been cut in half. We should be investing in the people of Indonesia, yet we have cut aid for health programs by a massive 86 per cent and for education by 57 per cent. Aid to Vietnam has been cut in half; assistance to the Philippines, Laos and Cambodia has been cut by a third; countries in south and west Asia have had their aid cut by $195.3 million; and assistance for Africa and the Middle East has been cut by 48.5 per cent over the last five years. Alarmingly, the figures show that Australia's annual assistance for education in all developing countries has been slashed by 41 per cent, while spending on health is down by $260.8 million. That's 32.3 per cent since 2014-15.

Supporting education is vital to achieving gender equality and preventing violent extremism in our region. The women and children of some of Australia's most important neighbours are suffering. Even within the Pacific region, we are seeing some nations losing direct funding. How can the Pacific step-up be effective if we cut aid to Vanuatu by 42 per cent, or to Samoa by 14 per cent? Cutting health assistance to Samoa by 36 per cent in the aftermath of its measles epidemic raises serious questions about whether the Morrison government is actually responding to the needs of our Pacific friends.

Our overall foreign aid budget has been slashed by 27 per cent in real terms since 2013, and now makes up a measly 0.82 per cent of federal government spending. This is an all-time low. Under Prime Minister Morrison, Australia's international aid as a share of national income is lower than it was under the Liberal prime ministers Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Fraser and Howard. Australia's aid budget as a share of GNI has fallen from being in the middle of the pack in the OECD to being one of the least generous among the OECD Development Assistance Committee member countries. As my friend Tim Costello said:

For years now the coalition has told us that aid would be restored 'once we returned to surplus'.

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath. I doubt this government will ever believe we have enough to start being generous again. Britain's debt is four times that of the Australian government, yet the UK has kept their promise to fix aid at 0.7 per cent of GNI. We are lagging where we should be leading.

This situation is contrary to Australia's interests in promoting economic development and the prosperity, stability and security that economic development brings. It's harming our international standing and our bilateral relationships. It is at odds with Australia's values as a generous nation. It is hurting, not helping, some of the poorest people in the world. In my role as ACTU president I was on the board of APHEDA, an international aid agency led in true solidarity by the wonderful Kate Lee. APHEDA runs small-scale aid projects that empower communities at the grassroots. It partners with local organisations and individuals to break people out of poverty, through empowering them through skills acquisition and organising capabilities—like establishing sustainable food sources, marketising local produce, learning skills that give lifelong careers, or fighting for human rights and workers' rights, to eliminate systemic exploitation. But APHEDA and the many other aid agencies need more resources to expand their work.

Just last year, it was announced the Morrison government will cease all bilateral aid to Pakistan. Australia has a 70-year history of providing aid to Pakistan but will end all government-to-government development assistance in 2020-21. Pakistan is one of the poorest countries in Asia. A key objective of Australia's aid to Pakistan has been assisting women and girls, with a focus on education, increased access to quality reproductive health services and gender based anti-violence services. It is incredibly short-sighted to scrap all bilateral aid to Pakistan.

I've been lucky enough to see the benefits of Australian aid. Last year I visited the Rohingya refugee camps on the Myanmar-Bangladesh border. Six parliamentarians were guests of Save the Children and—just like this motion states—the delegation saw the positive impact of the international aid we've given in response to this remarkable crisis. We've contributed around $70 million to the response. This solidarity is on display in so many ways. There are water pumps, bags of rice and other food items, medical clinics and so much more. We were able to witness the amazing contributions that our NGOs make in improving the lives and hopes of the Rohingya refugees. It's clear that our aid and solidarity, along with those of other countries, have done so much at a time of such a huge humanitarian disaster. When I visited, it was almost exactly 12 months since the first refugees flooded across the border, reporting atrocities at the hands of Myanmar soldiers.

What was then a forest refuge complete with wandering elephants is now a medium-sized city of almost one million people. The infrastructure of the camps and the food, health and social programs for over 900,000 people, many of whom are still traumatised by the death of loved ones, is quite remarkable. One of the key lessons I learned was that it will be crucial to provide men and women with real education and opportunities to earn a livelihood within the camps. Work is dignity, and the Rohingya are a determined, hardworking people, not used to doing nothing. We met young people who had completed or nearly completed high school in Myanmar, whose hopes have now been shattered. They don't have any books to read, let alone opportunities for further study. Yet, they too are helping their brothers and sisters in the brother-sister programs, teaching the young ones who can't get to the early learning centres.

The reality is that the vast majority of refugees will be there for a long time. A looming question is: how does development occur that gives the Rohingya hope and opportunity but also deals with the equally pressing needs of the Bangladeshi population? Many programs are now delivering around 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the funding to host communities to try to compensate for this.

This all plays into what commitment Australia will make in the medium to long term. As a nation, we need to lift our aid and effort both to the Rohingya camps and to this region of Bangladesh, not cut it. It's shameful that a country like Australia can't fund the money to play our role in lifting the standards and opportunities of our neighbours. Apart from lacking any humanitarian heart, it's foolish in national security terms not to invest in international aid. If we do not assist countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan or support countries who are suffering through ongoing armed conflict, we can expect that the resulting refugee flows will further strain international agencies and donors. Many parts of Africa are in crisis as a result of civil war, others through drought, floods and the climate crisis. The 65 million people who are currently displaced globally surpasses the number of people displaced during World War II.

Tackling poverty in developing countries means a more stable and secure international environment. We know that poverty and social inequality generates instability, insecurity and tensions. By reducing economic disadvantage we can tackle the root causes of that instability, and it will not only improve the welfare of developing countries but also improve Australia's security.

Labor also makes the point that this bill exposes the Prime Minister's hypocrisy concerning international institutions. On the one hand, Mr Morrison is out in the public arena undermining Australia's commitment to multilateral institutions with his rhetoric about negative globalism. His rhetoric is reminiscent of the right-wing nationalism we're seeing in the US and elsewhere. It takes us back to the 1930s. Our objective should be to promote unity, but we have a Prime Minister who is moving closer to the divisive politics we see in the US and the UK. There is something increasingly obvious about his behaviour and his political trajectory. His attacks on the right to protest, his denunciations of business people—

See this speech in context